The Government's own leaky home saga

"By definition, I cannot leak.''

So said former prime minister Helen Clark, defending herself against claims that she was the source behind Doonegate, the story about the fall from grace of former police chief Peter Doone after his vehicle was stopped at an alcohol checkpoint.

It was a spurious distinction at the time, but served to illustrate a very important point: nine times out of 10, it is politicians themselves who provide journalists with information - not their minions in the state service.

I raise the issue because the State Services Commissioner, Iain Rennie, has this morning announced an inquiry into "the unauthorised release of Government information''. Sounds awfully Orwellian, doesn't it?

The inquiry stems from two recent stories in the media. The first was the story broken by Fairfax Media - by Dominion Post reporter Emily Watt and myself, to be precise - that the Government was planning to amalgamate various departments in the state sector.

The second came from Forest and Bird, which provided information to TVNZ and TV3 that the Government was considering mining in various areas of conservation land, including the sensitive and politically charged Coromandel Peninsula.

Inadvertently, of course, the SSC commissioner has confirmed both stories were accurate. By describing them as "the unauthorised release of Government information'' and even confirming in his statement that both leaks related to Cabinet papers, one called "The stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991'' and the other "A machinery of government paper on proposed changes to the structure of the state sector'', Rennie has added considerable legitimacy to both articles. 

So while I'm grateful to him for that, I'm perturbed the SSC has seen fit to waste public money and time trying to find out where - or who - the information came from. Rennie has been around long enough to know this is a mission doomed to fail. The leakers sure as heck aren't going to say, and neither will the journalists involved. 

Rennie this morning claims that "unauthorised release of Government information has the potential to seriously undermine trust in the Public Service''. What tripe. And how hypocritical, considering the government - any government - is always the biggest leaker of the lot. 

In my experience, most state servants take their responsibilities extremely seriously and bend over backwards to maintain standards of ethical and professional behaviour. The same cannot be said for their political masters.

Sure, there are examples of high-profile leaks from public servants. The Telecom broadband leak from a parliamentary messenger springs to mind. But generally it's the government itself that has the characteristics of a sieve.

This has been the situation since time immemorial. It often serves the interests of politicians to get stories into the public arena without actually announcing them. Sometimes it's to fly a kite on an issue, other times it's because they have information they shouldn't have that they want to be publicised for their own ends.

It's a two-way street, with both the journalists - and the public - benefiting from the freedom of information, and the politician or their officials with their own axes to grind.

But for some reason the Government has suddenly gone sour on leaks just because it's had a couple that obviously didn't serve its purpose. To borrow another Clark phrase, "Diddums''. You win some, you lose some.

Labour's Grant Robertson puts it another way: 

"Instead of starting a witch-hunt in the public service, the National Government should take a look at its own shambolic handling of important issues.

"They have only themselves to blame given their secretive approach to issues like mining in conservation land and state sector mergers.''

It's a fair point. And there does seem to have been some political pressure on Rennie to launch this inquiry. Only last Monday, Prime Minister John Key was quite huffy about recent leaks.

"Some information might have been, but it doesn't mean it's accurate. That's the danger when people want to leak information. They might think they're right but that doesn't necessarily mean they are,'' he told his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday.

"When some people want to leak bits of information that aren't complete they risk getting out prematurely in front of a more coherent debate.''

Hmmmm. I guess a coherent debate would be one that suited the Government, as opposed to one that didn't?

To quote Robertson again: "The government is a serial leaker of information when it suits them. They need to take a good look in the mirror, rather than wasting resources on a witch-hunt of these whistleblowers."

Couldn't have put it better myself. Because in a strange refutation of the normal laws of physics, governments always leak best from the top.

» Follow NZStuffBlogs on Twitter and get fast updates on all Stuff's blogs.